Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the well,-shit dept

Not quite sure what to make of this, but the comment that was voted most insightful this week came on the post about CISPA passing (and the amendment that was added, changing the nature of the bill, which in many ways expanded the scope of the bill). The comment was a rather simple comment from hfbs that summed up many people's thinking on the subject:

Well, shit.

I don't know if that's all that insightful, but it sure seemed to capture the general mood.

The second most insightful comment, per the votes, came on the same post (actually, the third highest ranking comment was also on that post). The second place comment came from breadgod, and was a response to the news that this "cybersecurity" bill now also covered "protecting the children" as well:

Protect the children is the most convenient excuse ever created.

For editor's choice, we've got an Anonymous Coward commenting on the story about the press frenzy around Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik admitting to playing World of Warcraft -- and why that means nothing:

More accurate headline. Over 10 million World of Warcraft players didn't do anything violent last year. Doesn't leave much to talk about in an article though.

For the final editor's choice on the insightful side, we have Baldaur Regis perfectly summing up the debate between Jonathan Taplin and Alexis Ohanian over copyright law:

The guy on the left: entertainment industry = entitlement.

The guy on the right: tech industry = enhancement.

Does the entertainment industry have anybody who doesn't come off as a whiny old man?

Moving on to the funny comments. The winner this week on public votes was an Anonymous Coward on that same post about CISPA passing. The AC was responding to a comment from Leigh about how, after watching much of the debate on C-SPAN, he had "very little patience left for circumlocution and tortured phrasing..." The AC corrected Leigh:

Uh, that's circumlocution and enhanced interrogation phrasing.

We'll have to fix our filters.

Coming in second was another Anonymous Coward, responding to us mocking Jonathan Taplin appearing to claim that "pirates" are making Google rich by buying ads on Google (they're not). This AC suggests we're confused:

Hey you laugh but I spend thousands a month buying ad space from google to tell people where they can download things for free because thats how I make money. Its simple really:

For editor's choice, we've got Baldaur Regis yet again, with a response to CISPA co-sponsor Ruppersberger claiming that CISPA was just supposed to be about sharing code, but describing what could be shared rather awkwardly: "formulas, Xs and Os, the virus code." Regis pointed out the obvious:

Xs and Os. Yeah, this is exactly the guy I would hire to protect computer systems.

And, finally, we've got Dison Steele's response to a regular Techdirt critic arguing that supporters of the viewpoint here have a problem: "you see everything like a 1950's Western. Good guys in white, bad guys in black." That was on the post about the author using a hackneyed sci-fi trope trying to sue Ubisoft, because the game Assassin's Creed has a few tiny scenes that kinda, maybe looked vaguely similar. Steele pointed out the commenter who referred to "good guys" and "bad guys" might want to be careful:

Better be careful. The lawsuit claims one of the infringed ideas is "A recurring theme [of a] battle between good and evil" (par. 35). You don't want to get added to the suit.

Indeed. From here on out, there shall be no battle between "good" and "evil" on this site... though I'm sure some might reasonably consider our comment section to be exactly that at times.

Re:

"Huh. Not sure what to make of that either. Sorry for hogging the top space, guys >_>
As I see it, this site goes after people who claim rights, when they are not deserved. Hence,
your apology is rejected; because your heartfelt comment was very well deserved.

Re:

You can hold Mike to it if you want to, but I refuse to be bound by that statement. The RIAA's of the world are evil and deserve to be beaten until they can no longer exist in this version of the universe.

Re: Re:

The MAFIAA doesn't need to be beaten out of existence in this universe. All they really need is to get their heads out of their stinking butts and INNOVATE for a change instead of treating their customers like sh!t.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I make my movie. I upload it to Youtube and Vimeo. Lots of people are doing it.
I record my album.
I offer it as a free download from Soundcloud, or from my own website.
Lots of people are doing it.
What is this 'barrier to entry'?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Megaupload got taken down for no good reason, increasing the costs to those who want to upload their content, for one thing. Other services are now altering how they offer service, Scribd and others no longer allow people to view books without registering first (for example), and all these obstacles increase the effort that people must exert to get their content distributed and that customers must exert to access permissibly licensed content.

These create barriers to entry for new service providers and increase the costs of new and existing service providers in ways that invariably harm content distributors and consumers alike.

There are artificial barriers to broadcast and cableco content distribution as well as artificial legal barriers that deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers. These do make it more difficult for newcomers to enter the market.

Yes, thanks to the Internet and the efforts and merit and hard work of many (but absolutely no thanks to the worse than useless incumbents), newcomers are more able to enter the market and, as a result, they are entering. This creates unwanted competition among the worthless incumbents who's continued existence is entirely predicated on government assistance in the form of anti-competitive laws that are nothing but a burden to everyone else. Competition is precisely why incumbents are trying to get more laws passed, not (just) to stop infringement, but to increase the burden against (potential) competitors. This is exactly what they have wrongfully done outside the Internet through self serving legislation. Likewise, it's, no doubt, what they intent to do to the Internet as well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Here, there was a lot of infringement, yet, so far, the incumbents didn't really seem to care. Why? Because they really don't care all that much just about stopping infringement, what they want to stop is competition.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You guys have just GOT to stop deluding yourselves.
Newspapers and magazines are dying. Why? Quality and legal competition.
So if you want to kill the gatekeepers and mainstream content providers, all you have to do is offer something the same quality and free.
It's absolutely clear people are copyright infringing mainstream product BECAUSE the free alternative isn't as good and isn't as numerous.
Ignore us out of existence. Please, go on and do it.
Don't enjoy our product without paying for it. Bypass it!!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

How many people infringe mainstream products vs how many people access permissibly licensed content? Citation please.

"BECAUSE the free alternative isn't as good and isn't as numerous."

[citation needed]

So (some) people (sometimes) drink coffee because water isn't as good and it isn't as numerous.

You assume that just because some people might infringe, this is why infringement occurs. Your argument is a non sequitur, but I suppose when you hold an indefensible position this must be the best you can do.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Seriously? No citation needed.
You just need to browse any torrent sites, or The Pirate Bay.
Lot's of unauthoprized mainstream content, not so much authorized free content.

Fact is, you need to stop your collective whining about copyright and the entertainment establishment, and bypass the whole thing altogether by doing it yourself, EXACTLY like news bloggers, Huffington Post etc have done.
The evidence is on the web. But I guess it's harder to make a movie and record an album than it is to write a news blog. maybe that's why you are whining and not just doing it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So what, you think you can bypass democracy by lobbying the right people and placing people in that crappy congress, people are just giving you back what you sowed.

It is absolutely marvelous that so many people in some many countries without any connections whatsoever and total cultural differences all reached the same conclusion and that is copyright is bad.

The one universal truth to be learned here is that when idiots abuse monopolies eventually people get tired of it and find ways to route around them and there is nothing you idiot can do about it besides whining about or trying to guilt trip people which doesn't work so good does it?

Unauthorized content was not unauthorized laws where made to make it unauthorized it was all legal until very recently.

Complain all you want, people know BS when they see it and you are just full of it.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Additionally, I want their government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies abolished. I also want laws increasing the punishment for those who threaten restaurants and other venues who want to host independent performers without paying them a licensing fee (and who threaten bakeries who want to allow children to draw custom pictures on their birthday cakes).

These government established monopoly subsidies are the only reason these losers can continue, their continued control over these communication channels is a burden to the rest of us, and in a free market these meritless media giants would have died a long time ago.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

-1 , but agree with Mikes retort( called out like a boss )

"+1" is quicker to write and conveys the words."I agree with the right honorable persons comments"
It also is a public show of support , exactly like in real life where it happens all the time in lot's of different ways.

Re: Copyright Creationists

Re: Copyright Creationists

They don’t believe that human history goes back a lot further than the beginnings of copyright law.

Bollox.
Everyone understands history.
The question is are you for living in the past (pre-copyright), or for evolution?
Artists don't want to go back to amateur status, or to have to rely on patronage and charity to be creative. We've moved forward from that darker age.
If you want to evolve artists rights, you have to do it democratically, and that probably means persuading ordinary artists you are in their corner, pushing for a better future. By asking us to look back at culture before copyright, you are acting like a fundamentalist, asking us to look at society before women had a vote, or gay people could associate without breaking the law.
Bringing creative people along with your vision is the positive way forward, not mocking creative people and suggesting they travel back in time.

Re: Re: Copyright Creationists

If you want to evolve artists rights, you have to do it democratically, and that probably means persuading ordinary artists you are in their corner, pushing for a better future. By asking us to look back at culture before copyright, you are acting like a fundamentalist, asking us to look at society before women had a vote, or gay people could associate without breaking the law.

You think that voting with our wallets isn't a democratic way of getting you to change your marketing strategies? We're not looking backwards at patronage, et al, we're looking at the future, and the future does away with the middle men. If you're truly an artist, then why do you want the middle man so badly? Don't you know he's stilling your nickles?

Re: Re: Re: Copyright Creationists

You think that voting with our wallets isn't a democratic way of getting you to change your marketing strategies?

Of course not.
The problem with your lobby is that many of it's spokespeople advocate downloading without an artist's wishes. And that kills your legitimacy.
Downloading the new Keane album without paying for it is NOT 'voting with your wallet'.
A very clear example of my point is staring at you in the face. How is it that bloggers and online news has trumped newspapers and magazines? By copying
stories word for word out of Time Magazine and posting them online?
No. By writing your own blogs and your own news stories, then offering them freely to anyone.
You should just do the same with movies and music.

Re: Re: Copyright Creationists

If you want to evolve artists rights, you have to do it democratically, and that probably means persuading ordinary artists you are in their corner, pushing for a better future.

I think you misunderstand the nature of evolution. Evolution is driven by random mutation (crazy ideas that people try) and the culling of anything "not good enough." It is not driven by either an intelligent agent or things that are kind to the thing being evolved. It is driven by adversity and forces the entity that is evolving to adapt to unfair situations.

Are you sure you want to be subjected to evolutionary forces?

By asking us to look back at culture before copyright, you are acting like a fundamentalist, asking us to look at society before women had a vote, or gay people could associate without breaking the law.

Kind of, but that is a misleading comparison that overstates the similarities. Copyright is a restriction on who can copy. The suffrage fights were fights to remove a restriction on who can vote. The basic premises are more in opposition than in agreement with each other. Just because something is different from what it was in the past (the similarity you invoked), does not necessitate that it has changed for the better (what you intended to imply).

Bringing creative people along with your vision is the positive way forward, not mocking creative people and suggesting they travel back in time.

Those being mocked are those who have repeatedly claimed that there is no way for them to make money without copyright, whilst numerous others approach the problem from a creative stand-point and do quite well.

If this group really were a unique subset of the human race set apart by their ability to be creative, the innovations necessary to bring about those services that they are so opposed to could never have happened.

The subset of the population that uses creativity is actually quite large, and a good portion of that group is actively harmed by copyrights.

Artists don't want to go back to amateur status, or to have to rely on patronage and charity to be creative.

Re: Re: Re: Copyright Creationists

Those being mocked are those who have repeatedly claimed that there is no way for them to make money without copyright,

Is not what most are saying. Most artists are saying their ability to sustain their business is materially harmed by unauthorized downloading. It isn't an argument solely about copyright, It's about people consuming without paying back.

Partners: Labels, studios, publishers.
Important distinction.
In the age of patronage, you struggled to find someone to fund your projects.
In the modern age you have multiple choices for funding, including self funding, crowdfunding and partners, such as labels.
I'm against reducing the choices to charity and patronage.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Creationists

You assume too much. You assume that artists can't make money without selling copies and having sole monopoly control over it. You also assume people that experience an artist's work are obligated to compensate them for it. Neither of these assumptions are true. Artists can make money from art without having any control over copying whatsoever. Also, no one is obligated to compensate artists just because someone experienced their work. Copyright provides the opportunity for, but does not guarantee profit.

You fail to realize that labels, studios, and publishers are patrons. They are not "partners". You're twisting definitions.

Patron
Noun:

1. A person who gives financial or other support to a person, organization, cause, or activity.
2. A customer, esp. a regular one, of a store, restaurant, or theater.

All of those examples fit the patronage definition. They fund artists in support of the creation of works. It's all patronage. You're distinction is false. We are still in the age of patronage and the type of patronage the corporate publishers provide is akin to winning the lottery. Your work won't see the light of day unless you're very lucky and they deem it worthy.

It's actually undemocratic. A private bureaucracy decides what artists get the patronage they need to produce art that suits their ends. Only a chosen few get to ride the gravy train to glory and fortune while the rest are mired in obscurity. Thankfully, the internet has rectified that inequity.

The 'entitled' entertainer line is so deeply misguided.
I can't think of anything that better describes entitlement than some college kid, still living with ma and pa, downloading the latest Keane album against the band's wishes.
Because why? They deserve free music, or they are fighting copyright?
Fight copyright democratically by changing laws.
Deserve free music by making it yourself, create a vibrant, humming market place where great music is shared freely and with the agreement of the creative people involved.
Anything is else is just plain wrong, and no amount of fake negativity you can project on your opposers changes that.
There IS NO law that says you can't make movies, music and books and share it free of charge with each other. It's pure BS to claim the established entertainment industry can stop you, or are TRYING to stop you.

Re:

It's pure BS to claim the established entertainment industry can stop you, or are TRYING to stop you.

DMCA take down abuse.
MPAA rating schemes have been called into question.
Numerous services killed or impeded by predatory tactics (current: Spotify, netflix).
Collection rackets.
Absurdities of the Megaupload case.
Broad over-reaching censoring the Pirate Bay in Sweden.
Attack on an internet protocol and attacks on basic principles of the internet under the excuse of fighting piracy.

There is no hard evidence, but the idea can not be so simply dismissed.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

"We were all young once you know."

True. When I was young, if I didn't have the money to buy an album I asked around at school if somebody else had the album. If a person had the album I'd borrow it and record it on tape. Which means: I bought the albums I could (afford) and copied the ones I couldn't (afford).

When I was young, there were kids who had the money to buy a lot of albums and there were kids who had no money to spend on music. Others who had the money chose not to spend it on music. I don't think that the kids today are that much different then they were back then. The difference between then and today is the size of the schoolyard.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

"Entitled entertainer" only seems misguided if you are ignorant of reality. Entertainers feel entitled to be privy to special legal protections that are unheard of in every other industry, in spite of the fact that it is neither enforceable nor necessary. They feel they deserve to be compensated for each and every copy that is generated, so much so that they try to dictate to you how you can use your media regardless of whether or not it impacts them at all. They feel they deserve to be able to implement any and all technical restrictions that can and will break the devices' ability to use that media as it was intended. They feel they have the right to censor the legal free speech of numerous people in the process of temporarily inhibiting infringement. They claim they deserve to hold ownership over works for a lifetime and beyond to the point that if it is ever available to the public domain, it will no longer have any cultural relevance or be lost to cognitive decay entirely. They feel they have the right to block others from using their works as a platform to create derivative works that actually add value to the source works.

Need I go on? This is entitlement in spades. The behavior you point to as being entitlement is just humans being human. We are all taught at an early age to share, because sharing is how we learn, build social bonds, and solve problems. Sharing is considered a highly moral act and hoarding is considered amoral. Without sharing, we would not have technology, science, art, knowledge, or anything else. Without sharing, we would not be what we are today. Everything we have and everything we are was made possible through sharing.

Re: Re:

The behavior you point to as being entitlement is just humans being human. We are all taught at an early age to share, because sharing is how we learn

Such nonsense.
We are all taught NOT to take another child's toy without asking them.
Sharing is a two way street by definition. The downloaders are not contributing anything. So it just becomes taking, not sharing.
You can't share something if it is taken against your wishes.
The only entitlement musicians have is set in law. They are perfectly ENTITLED to act within the law.
If you don't like the laws change them. But don't pretend we are 'sharing' when you take my work without my agreement.

They aren't taking person A's, they are copying the copy that person B has.

The only entitlement musicians have is set in law. They are perfectly ENTITLED to act within the law.

The discussion here is about what should and should not be legal. As such, the current state of the law is irrelevant until the implementation stage is reached. The entitlement is the demand for the law, not the actions carried out under it.

Re: Re: Re:

You can't just pick apart my comment and attack the pieces that are easy to refute without the supporting statements. Sharing is the basis of how all human kind functions, you can't disregard that because you want to own speech.

We're not talking about physical property here. We're talking about communication, we are talking about sharing forms of speech. We are social beings and sharing is at the core of that. You can't even begin to compare physical property to ideas and speech. It's like apples and oranges. The cost of sharing thoughts and ideas is effectively zero. There is not less when you share, there is only more.

Your assertion that downloaders don't contribute anything is false. They contribute by sharing the works they feel worthy of sharing. Every person that shares increases the rate at which works spread to others so that they can know of that artist. They increase your notoriety and decrease your obscurity.

If you don't want people to share your works, you have only one solution. Don't release your works. If you publish, they will be shared against your will and there's nothing you can do about it. Why don't you try shifting how you make your money to something besides an untenable legal monopoly? If you bet your livelyhood on people not copying your work, you'll lose every time. There are options beyond selling copies, explore them. And don't tell me that charity is the only other option, if you can't think of any, then you didn't try hard enough.

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself [emphasis mine]; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it."

Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

The only entitlement musicians have is set in law.

The funny part in that statement is trying to use the law as the supreme rule when you know it doesn't matter at all.

If you thought for one moment that the law was just and correct and you had the upperhand in the public's eye you would put your face everywhere and bash everybody else using your own name, but as it happens the law is unpopular and any attempts of artists to try and complain about it in public were met with severe financial consequences that is why you hide isn't it, because even though the law say one thing you don't have the power or the support to make it out in the open and could be punished by that crap you spout.

Re:

Everybody agreed without help or consulting with others that the best course of action is to ignore it until it is cut to size or done away completely.

You are the one trying to fight something that it is normal to criminalize it, unfortunately you have the government on your side, but without public support that means exactly nothing.

People deserve the freedom to enjoy and share that joy without guilty trips or being prosecuted, it was, it is and will continue to be that way, legally or illegally and it doesn't matter what you think about it.

Are all issues not the creative community.
Fact is, if you create your own free product you can't fall foul of DMCA takedowns, attacks on Spotify, collection rackets.
Again, I put my movie on Youtube, I put my music on Soundcloud.
It's free. I'm giving it away.
Unless you can prove beyond doubt you'll be stopped from uploading your own content, you made yourself, to Youtube or Soundcloud, plus numerous other distribution outlets, you're talking BS.
I know many creative people who are giving away content through these outlets.
So how is the establishment stopping YOU?

Re:

It doesn't need more than that, when you abuse an exclusionary tool what you get is a lot of angry people and you can't see why?

Ask the people who had their videos excluded from Youtube because of false/wrong claims it happens a lot and you can't see that as a problem?

Remember the guy who got his songbird recording taken down?
Remember the mother who got in jail because it filmed her daughters birthday in a theater?
Remember the thousands of people who were blackmailed to pay or face having to go to a court of law to explain how they could never have download a porn movie?
Lets ask mayers what they think about having to raise taxes to pay for the fee collection agencies are trying to collect because of busking.
Lets see you find a place to play without having to deal with collection agencies.
Lets see you explain why people can't offer unmanned printing services to others because of the risks that someone will print something that he should not.

And the evidence keeps mounting.

Even for historical purposes copyBS is just that BS if it were not for pirates part of Dr. Who would be lost forever.

Explain why somebody else doing all the performing, doing the hours should pay you idiot for doing nothing?

Explain why don't you pay royalties to the manufacturer of the tools you use to work?

Re: Re:

Actually I don't get paid for doing nothing.
I get paid when I sell a product, When someone downloads it, I don't get paid.
Many artists are EXACTLY like me.
But anyway...
This thread is all about angry whining about the mainstream industry.
Not one of you has admitted you could bypass the mainstream industry by making and sharing your own movies and music.
Ya know.. like the bloggers and online news sites did. DO IT YOURSELF, don't take advantage of someone else's hard work against their wishes.

Re: Re: Re:

Imagine all companies and manufacturers making dishes decided that it's against their wishes that you use them elsewhere than their intended locations. You'd have dishes for the kitchen, you'd have dishes for the living-room, you'd have dishes for your garden, for your balcony and for picnics. If you wanted to use your kitchen-dishes in the living-room you wouldn't be allowed to do so, because it would be against the manufacturers wishes.

Now imagine there was a law protecting these wishes. And a lobby protecting and expanding this law (for example stating that you couldn't use the same dishes you used for breakfast for lunch and for dinner).

Would you make your own dishes, yes? Or would you just ignore the law and the wishes of the manufacturers?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You analogy has no basis in reality. It's a wild fantasy.
That's the problem here. If you can't persuade people copyright is a negative with real examples, you make some crazy analogies up.
Simple fact, as I've repeated numerous times, and which hasn't been contradicted by anyone yet, make a movie and post it on Youtube, make a record and release it freely on Soundcloud or thru your own website. Then see if anyone from the established industry tries to stop you.
They wont, because people are doing those things every day. Just not enough of them, and not enough good DIY movies and music for your liking.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Simple fact, as I've repeated numerous times, and which hasn't been contradicted by anyone yet, make a movie and post it on Youtube, make a record and release it freely on Soundcloud or thru your own website. Then see if anyone from the established industry tries to stop you.

Emphasis added.

Remember the guy who got his songbird recording taken down?

That was posted on Youtube. It was not infringing and it still received a DCMA take down notice. As such, not only do we have evidence (one of many many examples) that your statement is not a solid fact, but it has already been pointed out in this thread.

At this point you are demonstrably resorting to disingenuity, suggesting that your arguments can not stand on their own merits.

By the way, I'm a programmer and fully intend to contribute to the large volume of open source software out there. I have, after all, found it to be quite useful in my educational endeavors.

Open source software, by the way, has reached a level where it can easily supplant most proprietary software. At this point, I think the biggest exception to this is drafting tools (which will change relatively soon). Large companies still make plenty of money, as most are designing for either internal use or commissioned products. Those that tried to block off the market, the way the RIAA/MPAA have, got shot down with anti-trust suits and have primarily focused on convenience ever since (Microsoft for one, not that we don't still have to keep an eye on them).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you can't persuade people copyright is a negative with real examples, you make some crazy analogies up.
Simple fact, as I've repeated numerous times, and which hasn't been contradicted by anyone yet, make a movie and post it on Youtube, make a record and release it freely on Soundcloud or thru your own website. Then see if anyone from the established industry tries to stop you.

Yes, those ones have survived. But try to post it to Megaupload -- as tons of legitimate musicians did, and then what?

Sorry, you're fucked, because of shortsighted idiots.

How about the original Veoh? Sorry. Fucked.

The Pirate Bay? Not if you live in the Netherlands. Fucked.

Limewire? Fucked.

Napster? Fucked.

Yeah, sorry, but your explanation doesn't hold much weight. You guys keep destroying platforms that smarter people use to their own advantage. You can't point to the few that you've let live and insist that everything's fine.

Re: Re: Re:

Nobody needs to prove that.
a) People can just take it and you will do nothing.
b) There are alternatives and they keep growing.

About how you get paid, then you don't need a monopoly do you, because you would sell it anyways to people who like you and not force others to fallow laughable rules for which not even you can fallow, you complain about pirates but you yourself engage in such behavior even though you will die saying otherwise, so please pirate stop trying to sell your snake oil nobody want that.

You be more happy paying attention to what you can do and sell instead of trying to force others not to copy something.

BTW! I do it myself already, it is going to be 20 years without buying any music from you people, even though I gave money to some musicians, but that money is not going to people like you ever, if it is not CC0, CC-by-SA or any other copyleft like that screw the music I live without it, I don't even know what is in the top 100, I would have to look it up, I don't know what is hot on TV, I don't know what is on the theaters and you think anything you say will make me start giving you money?

ROFLMAO!

But even if I couldn't live without your art I certainly can live without you, I can rip the music, the movie, the book or whatever and you will do nothing about it, because there is nothing you can do, people already ignore the law in numbers so great that you and your kind don't even dare to say it in public you have to hide, just like everybody has when they copy something.

Not even governments can do a damn thing.

Why don't you try and do it yourself your money, go play live and get paid, go sell some merch which CD's are just part of it and convince people to pay you and not the Chinese guy, do some real work because sitting on your ass and waiting for others to pay you because you think you deserve it is not going to happen.

Have you made plans for when you are destitute already?
Because one way or another you will give it away for free, law or no law, people just need to change their attitudes and you are screwed, this is why you will never ever win this fight and the more you whine about it the more people get annoyed, personally I don't think you deserve anything if it was up to me you be on the streets begging where you belong, people who don't work and want to depend on a monopoly deserve every single bad thing that happens to them, but I am a hard man, that believe in real work not that fantasy called copycrap, that is BS and every single person on earth knows it, that is why nobody respect those laws anywhere.

Re: Re: Re:

Why don't you do it yourself too?
Why don't you enforce your "rights" on your own?
Why the public needs to pay for enforcing your privileges?
Why don't you go work for a change and do real work instead of trying to force others to fallow ridiculous rules that nobody on earth respects or fallow?

Grow up, be a man and work, stop whining about what others are doing, tend to what is really yours and you will get paid, try to meddle where you have no business sticking your funny nose in it and you will get bitch slapped every time.